One of the disappointing things about this title was that there was no motion blur of any sort, but it's open world, so it is understandable that it won't look as good as the other games. The physics look pretty nice tho.

One of the disappointing things about this title was that there was no motion blur of any sort, but it's open world, so it is understandable that it won't look as good as the other games. The physics look pretty nice tho.

The only part about it that looked really great was the beginning, with the beads on the roof, and then panning down when we see that person closing the drapes, but once it gets down to street level, and the guy actually starts playing, it looks nowhere near as good as the cutscene just before it

It looked alive before that. Then it looked at best on par with anything else shown at E3.

You're not getting anywhere near that level of detail when you're actually playing it versus the cutscene we see in the beginning.

The only part about it that looked really great was the beginning, with the beads on the roof, and then panning down when we see that person closing the drapes, but once it gets down to street level, and the guy actually starts playing, it looks nowhere near as good as the cutscene just before it

It looked alive before that. Then it looked at best on par with anything else shown at E3.

You're not getting anywhere near that level of detail when you're actually playing it versus the cutscene we see in the beginning.

That's probably because once it gets to the character, it is zoomed out and you can't see much details. I'm positive that you would be able to see those details if you zoomed in on an object. It seemed like the whole thing was done in gameplay.

Nah. That other stuff may have been 'in-engine', but the rest of the game was not remotely close to that. It was static. You can see him looking up at the buildings and nothing is going on. The textures were ok once it was already in-game, but the lighting was very good.

I was (somewhat) more impressed with the high-def inFamous gameplay we saw. Lots of effects going on, destructibility as well.

Though on pure visual style, I probably liked Warframe the most. Just crazy fast, with holy $#@! lighting and particle effects. Though to be fair the world doesn't seem as big, though we did see an outside ice level which was plenty large.

Well I mean, I don't see other games any more alive than The Division. As for Warframe, well now we're just talking about preferences because I thought it was meh in gameplay while I liked the CGI they showed before.

Nah. That other stuff may have been 'in-engine', but the rest of the game was not remotely close to that. It was static. You can see him looking up at the buildings and nothing is going on. The textures were ok once it was already in-game, but the lighting was very good.

I was (somewhat) more impressed with the high-def inFamous gameplay we saw. Lots of effects going on, destructibility as well.

Though on pure visual style, I probably liked Warframe the most. Just crazy fast, with holy $#@! lighting and particle effects. Though to be fair the world doesn't seem as big, though we did see an outside ice level which was plenty large.

Been playing warframe for a year on my crappy laptop. Its only particles and some bloom effects. I was fooled into thinking how great warframe looked when I first saw it, but after putting a round 10hrs into it, its very repetitive, reused environments, bloom cranked to 11 (sometimes covers entire screen and textures aren't very good

The Division Hands down the technical masterpiece of E3 (because it was actually a game and not a trailer or a tech demo)

I wonder when a nuclear warhead goes off, does the frame rate of real life drop?

The Division isn't so technically impressive as games running on Frostbite 3 and Cryengine 3 at E3. The Division was just some nice baked lighting and real-time reflections. Ryse and Battlefield 4 would probably be the best of show at E3 from a technical standpoint. Especially with Battlefield 4 having tons of real-time effect and lighting and tons of particle and physics effects creating such intensive scenes. And there is also the case that The Division has zero motion blur while Ryse and BF4 have intensive next gen motion blur.

The Division isn't so technically impressive as games running on Frostbite 3 and Cryengine 3 at E3. The Division was just some nice baked lighting and real-time reflections. Ryse and Battlefield 4 would probably be the best of show at E3 from a technical standpoint. Especially with Battlefield 4 having tons of real-time effect and lighting and tons of particle and physics effects creating such intensive scenes. And there is also the case that The Division has zero motion blur while Ryse and BF4 have intensive next gen motion blur.

You basically started your post with incorrect info. The Division has dynamic global illunimation.
I don't know why people are even disputing that Division was the best graphical showcasing of a game at E3

I wonder when a nuclear warhead goes off, does the frame rate of real life drop?

You basically started your post with incorrect info. The Division has dynamic global illunimation.
I don't know why people are even disputing that Division was the best graphical showcasing of a game at E3

I never said the game did not have dynamic global illumination. I said the lighting is largely baked.

The Division isn't so technically impressive as games running on Frostbite 3 and Cryengine 3 at E3. The Division was just some nice baked lighting and real-time reflections. Ryse and Battlefield 4 would probably be the best of show at E3 from a technical standpoint. Especially with Battlefield 4 having tons of real-time effect and lighting and tons of particle and physics effects creating such intensive scenes. And there is also the case that The Division has zero motion blur while Ryse and BF4 have intensive next gen motion blur.

please stop mentioning ryse...the demo had duplicates of everything, quick time events all over the place...Lol I don't think anything was dynamic in that demo

The Division isn't so technically impressive as games running on Frostbite 3 and Cryengine 3 at E3. The Division was just some nice baked lighting and real-time reflections. Ryse and Battlefield 4 would probably be the best of show at E3 from a technical standpoint. Especially with Battlefield 4 having tons of real-time effect and lighting and tons of particle and physics effects creating such intensive scenes. And there is also the case that The Division has zero motion blur while Ryse and BF4 have intensive next gen motion blur.

Well I mean, I don't see other games any more alive than The Division. As for Warframe, well now we're just talking about preferences because I thought it was meh in gameplay while I liked the CGI they showed before.

One thing that stands out to me in the Division gameplay and attention to detail is the closing of the doors on the cars. I don't know why, but they do.

One thing that stands out to me in the Division gameplay and attention to detail is the closing of the doors on the cars. I don't know why, but they do.

i actually didn't even notice that until someone said it. i don't care for the details while i love them...i just think the concept is amazing and any game that's similar to WoW in the way that it's an MMO and has talent trees...that's a win in my book. I've been saying that I wanted a game like that for years.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.